To ME, and maybe not to him, Brown made a point I cogitate about.
I read the Da Vinci Code and realized that accepted history still obsesses on Constantine. In the Code, he was supposed to have unilaterally changed the whole Church and made it wholly male-dominated. That reflects the usual accepted history doctrine that there was a united Church that was perverted when Constantine saw those words, not a Cross, in the sky.
But one man didn’t do all that, whether in accepted history or in the Da Vinci Code. My thesis, which is open to correction, is that Constantine was practical politician of his own time.
I stressed the importance of realizing one’s POINT OF VIEW. Brutus is right that Brown was an engineer and a mathematician, so he looked at things from that standpoint. That is an important observation.
My background is power politics, so naturally I look at things that way.
What Lawrence made me look at was the historical PROCESS that Constantine was dealing with. “Rome” didn’t FALL. What was ROME became two distinct societies. History does not even recognize that the Levantine Civilization which included the Eastern Mediterranean for so long was a “Great Civilization” unto itself.
In Levantine Civilization, what we see as the religious groups were the actual nations. When a people became Moslem, they wrote in Arabic script. The Jews wrote in Hebrew script, including the ones who became Yiddish, which is written with Hebrew characters. As Russia shows us, the Orthodox Christians wrote in Cyrillic.
The West, contrary to accepted history, did not languish in unbathed barbarity until the rediscovery of Classical Literature gave us a Rebirth. We became the West. We were a separate entity from Mankind in general.
This is one of the most important transitions in history from ANY point of view. It was the origin of not one, but TWO “Great Civilizations,” even if you discount the special importance of the West.
And it is totally ignored.
We have a giant hole to fill in history. It should be fun.
#1 by backbaygrouch4 on 03/09/2008 - 4:21 pm
This is winging it. Rome grew as a Western, that is, wholly Aryan nation. In the late Republic it conquered first Greece, and later the Middle East, halted only by the Persian Empire which had been revitlaized by the elite ensconced by Alexander. The more populous eastern half of the Mediterranean hegemony eventually overcame politically the western half which prompted a split, first in dual emperor system of Diocletian which lasted roughly two hundred years.
The dual emperor system was systemically unstable. The severance became complete in what we call the fall of Rome in 476 at Ravenna. In the West the satrapies started to form the incipient nation states that have persisted to the present time in the divisions of Europe. The parameters of these nations did not reflect the ethnic background of the local population but rather the military/political reach of the leaders of various southern and western moving Germanic tribes (Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Angles, Saxons, etc.). This could reflect the individualistic nature of western, White man.
The East proceeded along a different course inherent in their hive mentality. Byzantium maintained the collectivist. bureaucratic states reflective of the native populations of Mesopotamia and Egypt for several hundred years until the explosion coming out of Arabia supplanted it. The struggle was long, from c.700 until c. 1300 when a third force entered the picture from Central Asia under the leadership of Osman. This entity first replaced the Arab which had decimated by Mongol hordes who had not the administrative skills to run the Empire. The Turkish tribes in 1453 finished off the Eastern Empire in 1453. This led to an infusion of refuges whose inflicted the Renaissance on the decentralized West.
In 800 the Western Empire had been reborn as the Holy Roman Empire. In part this reflected the unity and dominance of the Catholic Church but it never attained true political supremacy as the Pope because the Emperor dichotomy was never satisfactorily resolved. The revived western institution sputtered along, waxing and waning, until 1806 when Napoleon laid it to rest. (Yet another date for the ‘fall’ of Rome We have now pinned it down between 293 and 1806 which shows just how flexible history, as a yarn, can be Oh, why not, in the spirit of mocking the academic pretensions of history, extend it to 1929 when the Lateran Accords abrogated all Papal claims to secular power in its share of the Western Emperorship?).
If a theme can be imposed on the divergent tales it would be, I suggest, that dynamic outside forces conquer the East, replacing only the top level of society. This is true of India nad China also. These elites are unable to change the ethos of the hive dwellers and eventually submerge into the mass. The West, on the other hand, is constantly peeling off subdivisions due to its individualistic orientation. It falters only when it allows in Asiatic and other hordes that introduce collectivist attitudes The East is conquered from above, the West, from below.
Ideas work the same way in both societies which is why progress comes from the West rather than the collectivist East. The myriad ideologies choking the West today are all foreign accretions imported by Easterners, mostly Asiatic Jews with their insane cults, communism, zionism, globalism, etc. The great weakness of the White man is that he extends liberty to those who cannot handle it and, therefore, seek to destroy it through these cults.
Anyhow, that is my rant for today. All are cordially invite to tear it to shreds..
#2 by Simmons on 03/09/2008 - 5:34 pm
Let’s be honest any white intellectual unless fully aborbed in the wordism today without the least bit of cynicism thinks the asiatic jews a mess. Beyond the patronizing for money it is an embarrasment to shill for the jews and their collective mess. Dave though frequently off the reservation has noted how the jews and their acolytes spar over the nature of “interest rates”, and how this is little but religious posturing.
bbg4 is on to something that I have mentioned in the past, we are dealing with cults. And the dirty little secret is that the leaders of these cults deperately want a white leadership to save their sorry little behinds.
So in practical political purposes I say that when we are in mantral dispersal mode we also label every “ism” a cult.
#3 by Pain on 03/15/2008 - 9:39 pm
Bob,
Lawrence Brown didn’t write the Da Vinci Code. You are mixing him up with Dan Brown. He didn’t write it either; he stole it from a crackpot who didn’t have the connections in publishing to get the fiction published.
Lawrence Brown wouldn’t have written the drivel you are rambling about and he was already dead anyway.
I am commenting on this because it is embarrassing to me when you make a fool of yourself.